The conservation and sustainable management of biological resources was high on the international agenda in February 2004. Representatives of more than 160 countries converged on Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia over three weeks to discuss a host of important matters dealing with the subject. The seventh meeting of the Conference of Parties (CoP-7) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which took place from February 9-20, set the ball rolling. The activity culminated with the first Meeting of Parties (MoP-1) to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety from February 23-27.

At CoP-7, the possibility of developing an international regime on access and benefit-sharing (ABS) of genetic resources was evaluated. Negotiations were also conducted on a comprehensive programme to protect biodiversity hotspots. MoP-1 involved discussions on setting up mechanisms to ensure compliance with biosafety provisions, and on documents that would accompany shipments of living modified organisms. While some significant, albeit watered down, decisions were taken during CoP-7, members largely tested the waters at MoP-1.
CoP-7: modest gains For a long time, developing nations have been demanding fair returns for their native plants, which are used by Western companies to make medicinal and other products. At CoP-7, they had a chance to negotiate an international system that would facilitate such a transfer. The creation of such a mechanism would provide technology-rich developed countries access to the genetic resources of biodiversity-rich areas (mostly in the South). Additionally, it would ensure that the benefits of commercialisation accrue to the poor communities that have preserved these resources for generations.

ABS STRUCTURE: The proposed international regime on ABS is an important aspect of conservation and sustainable management of biodiversity. "By giving biodiversity-rich countries a greater stake in protecting their valuable biological resources, this future regime could make an enormous contribution to the goals of CBD,' remarked Hamdallah Zedan, executive secretary of the Convention.

"But the developed countries were only interested in the access part and paid scant attention to the benefit-sharing aspect,' quipped an official in India's Union ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) who was also a member of the country's delegation. It was this disinclination that prevented consensus from being evolved on a legally binding instrument.

Among the developing countries, the 39-member African Group is the strongest proponent of this arrangement. Developed members like Australia, Canada, Switzerland and the EU, are, however, not interested in any treaty that would obligate them legally. Instead, they prefer to focus on the recommendatory Bonn Guidelines on ABS, which were adopted at the last CoP. In Kuala Lumpur, the bloc questioned the very need for such a regime despite agreeing to it at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. A compromise was ultimately struck when members resolved to deliberate on the nature of the regime in the Ad Hoc Open-Ended Working Group on ABS.

This is one among several features of the terms of reference of the ABS working group. It is now expected to "elaborate and negotiate an international regime' with the aim of adopting one or more international instruments. The regime's scope would not only cover genetic resources but traditional knowledge, innovations and practices associated with the use of the resources as well. The group is also required to flesh out measures to ensure benefit-sharing, to promote scientific research, and to ensure compliance with national legislations.

DIVIDED ON WIPO: The other controversial issue with respect to ABS was the role of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). Most developing countries were opposed to the idea of involving the body. Its role was necessitated on issues related to the disclosure of origin of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge in applications for intellectual property rights protection (see: 'Break the deadlock'). "The bloc views WIPO as a trade-centric body biased towards developed countries,' points out D D Verma, joint secretary, MoEF. To their credit, members brought about a balance in the final decision. "Other organisations like the UN Conference on Trade and Development, and the Food and Agriculture Organization would also be involved, and WIPO's work has been specifically restricted to the terms decided for it,' adds Verma.

FOOTING THE BILL: Just as it seemed that the ABS issue had been thrashed out, a fresh obstacle emerged. No country was forthcoming on funding the two working group meetings required before the next CoP in 2006. The developed nations were unwilling to allow these meetings to be financed by the core budget of the CBD, and suggested that the expenditure be borne voluntarily. At the same time, they were averse to committing any resources for the purpose. It wasn't until Thailand offered to host one of the two meetings that progress was made. Following this, Spain, too, expressed a similar intent. Subsequently, it was agreed that one of the meetings would be funded from the core budget and the other from voluntary resources without specifying the country.

NORTH'S PRESERVE: For their part, developed nations wanted the focus to be on protection of biodiversity hotspots. "They were keen that the topic be accorded the highest priority,' reveals Verma. The stance was predictable because the biotechnology-rich developed world is disproportionately dependent on developing nations for biological resources. The 17 members of the like-minded megadiverse countries (LMMC)